The Insatiable Media Sensation

The post I chose for this week’s Blog assignment was a Huffington Post article written by Jason Linkins and Elyse Siegel titled “Obama Performs His Disappearing Act: The 2012 Speculatron Weekly Roundup for Oct.5” The article, while I was interested in reading at first, became pretty clear to me that it was just traditional sensationalist media trying to make mountains out of molehills.

For example when the authors mentioned their disappointment that the debate was not a “Zinger fest”, this is a debate, not a circus show focused on entertainment.  Stating that the debate was “remarkably free of attacks to the jugular”, as if it were a bad thing rubs me the wrong way. Why is refraining from tearing down another candidate a flaw? I have grown weary of the mudslinging that has become popular in politics as of late. Furthermore, why should the president be wasting time tearing down Mitt Romney and pointing out how much he flip flops on issues, when that is the job of the moderator? A debate is to focus on the topics at hand, not to spend the entire time tearing each other down. The writer stating that the Obama campaign not pointing out Romney's lies until the day after being useless is silly. This election is more than a series of televised debates, it's important that the public stay informed even when it's not the most popular thing on T.V. To watch.  And as a matter of fact, there were sites that WERE fact checking AS the debate was happening. 

It was also the opinion of the authors, as well as several other sources that the “clear” victor in this first debate was Romney. Stating “ by not losing, Romney won”.  So going into a debate without saying anything of real substance and telling large falsities is considered now to be presenting one's self as a "credible Candidate"? Is winning by not losing an actual victory nowadays?

To me, this all seems to be sensationalism. Calling Obama listless and performing a disappearing act seems a bit extreme and uncalled for. And declaring a man a winner simply because he had presence and energy is just about as silly as saying someone won because they didn't lose...

One of the authors, Jason Linkins, has a history of this sensationalist sort of writing.  In fact, he was banned  from the HuffPo Front Page for awhile for his writings and articles.  This article makes brevity a joke, and seems to me that they are looking to stir up the pot more than aiming to be objective.